On the other hand, it could fund those community health clinics being stripped by the economic crises in California. Those work pretty well. There are opportunities to get systems in place that enable us to spot disease trends before they become epidemics.

We don't have to do this the way other countries do it. We can think innovatively if we will just stop shouting and posturing (the academic 'we'). We should stop being fearful and start thinking about the world 'the way it oughta be'.

Look at the good work done by the GC members. Is the GC a 'socialist' organization? Yes. It is. It's also small and it's local but would anyone here say 'it can't work because the lines to get in are too long'?

"Look at the good work done by the GC members. Is the GC a 'socialist' organization? Yes. It is. It's also small and it's local but would anyone here say 'it can't work because the lines to get in are too long'?"

Great point Len. Although I might suggest that many of those who are against Obama's health care reform would say that "it won't work because the folks in the line's hair is too long......

Sometimes folks are taught to just not trust certain words without considering the concepts behind them, and where they may already apply in their own lives.Socialism can be a scare word to some people.As has been alluded to here before, almost anything the government does could be considered on some level to be socialism.Our defense is socialized.Our highway system is as well.Medicaid-medicare. Nasa.The postal service.With an item that is one sixth of gross domestic product and rising, and leaving many people wanting, why a socialist option in place for health care? As it turns out, we pay for it anyway by subsidizing medical care for the uninsured. I understand it's always scary when the goverment gets it's hooks into stuff, but could they do worse than AIG, GM, Bank of America etc.?Read the article above that I posted about a lack of logic,facts and fear regarding this "debate".

One aspect of govPhobia is the fact that the government just like a corporation is a hydra and each head is not equally smart or competent. Over the career I've had many different gov customers from NASA to HUD skipping through all three branches of the military as well. The policies are there but it always comes down to the competence of the individual civil servants and contractors. It's the old 'don't mistake stupid for malice' adage. Some days these people get up on the wrong side of the bed too.

Overall, almost everyone I ever worked with was trying to do their jobs in or out of government and industry and while yes, I've seen some unbelievably corrupt operations (and health care is a fat juicy morsel for the system gamers, beware beware), most of the time it was paperwork and tedium that made them go south.

We are already paying for the uninsured as Larry says. We can do that better with systems such as community health clinics which have been underfunded for some time. The rub here is these are just more non-profits and the bitch about these is that they have to managed by professional organizations that can easily hide the corruption given non-profit status. In some ways, treating the health care reform as just a few tweaks here and there in budgeting could be a devolutionary step.

The longer I look at it, while it would be the biggest leap, the single payer system is the best solution for all of the problems if you try to solve them all at once. It is way easier to manage that even if it is a system of private contractors managed by government organizations (eg, the Medicare model).

It still doesn't address the challenge of alternative care in systems where everyone pays in but some have to double pay to get their choice of care. On the other hand, under a government managed system, eligible health care resources become a matter of managed policy instead of the labyrinthe of medical organizations that tightly control the types of care that can be provided by controlling the medical schools, their curricula and admissions as well as the conference-led standards organizations that tend to be made up of the most political among them. Politically, it is easier to change the direction of a few legislators than doctors. Unfortunately, that is how the insurance companies got the lock-in they enjoy now.

There is no getting around the People vs InsuranceOrgs aspect of this reform.

Great news Len , am glad for you that everything is going well. For the healthcare option , i dont want the system of the USA , neather Canada . I think whe have a much better system over here . I dont want to say that it is perfect but it is better . Its far more a social system and payable for everyone . Can enybody tell me why American people are so afraid of the word ' socialism '?

Can enybody tell me why American people are so afraid of the word ' socialism '?

One theory is it is a result of the work of a PR firm that was hired during the Truman administration. In 1947 (there is that year again), Truman was fighting for.... tada... health care reform. The PR firm coined the term "socialized medicine" as part of the campaign against Truman's efforts. Likely they were piggybacking on the fears of the National Socialist Party during the war. That's the simplest application of semiotics to a campaign. It's a good field to be acquainted with these days if you need to sort facts and near facts being presented during campaigns of any kind.

BTW while here, there is an alternative thought that addresses Arlo's concerns about the manipulation of currency and the grab for value by the manipulators that has resulted in the concentration of wealth in the hands of the few while reducing the currency value for the majority. It is called "natual money" and is based on the old notion of having a physical correlate for value. Here's the fun part that the 'slinger might enjoy: one of the very first examples of this was put to work by a man named "Joseph": the one with the coat, not the one in Utah.

For the seven bad years, Joseph set up exchanges based on the corn stored. If you brought corn, you got script. If you made bread from corn, you could get corn scripts. (if you listen to too many ABBA songs you get corn, but I digress).

I suppose what I was saying before, and what Len has been saying, is that any government run thing that divides and doles out resources could be called a socialist program.The negative conotation of the word my come from extreme capitalists that fear that there will be less profiting from the system and then make their voices heard. There is fear mongering injected into the debate with the likes of "death panels" and losses of certain personal choices or freedoms. Those that have empires and wealth to protect might speak the loudest, if only by proxy. And much as the neo-cons got many simple folk to votes against their own interests with thier "family values" dogma, the same kinda of baloney is being served up for this debate.Many of the neo-con base and some that side with them are like devout sports fans cheering on a winless team, simply because it's their team and they are lifetime fans.It is easy for the spin doctors to whip the uninformed and the downright clueless up into a frenzy.

Right, Larry, and it's a "Let's you and him fight" strategy that keeps our attention away from the Oz behind the screen. In a way, our political parties, the various isms, etc., are just thought killers. They don't mean that much.

Our money system is set up to create valueless values and that enables those who neither spin nor reap to own the fruits thereof and ensure we have to work to produce what we need without ever owning any of it. It sounds marxist or socialist and that is exactly wrong.

natural money as a concept(without reading the stuff you provided links for) will probably only work when the entire world is at the point of having to work or fight for basic human needs like food and water.Like the times in the past where just having those things meant wealth.

Gessel makes interesting predictions. One is that once a country switches over to a natural money currency, other countries are forced to do it inevitably. I'm not sure how that works but imagine say China doing this. As it is, the world currencies based on the US dollar force the US to keep raising its debt ceiling and at some point, that has to crash catastrophically pulling China down with us.

I'm not sure if there is enough baby in that bathwater but in pursuit of alternatives and to answer some of Arlo's concerns that kicked off these threads, this is one model to compare the rest against.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

Display posts from previous:Sort by

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum